No, the age of the universe is not determined by radiometric dating at all. We can see light from more than 6,000 light years away so you’d have to assume the speed of light changed. We can trace the paths of broken-up astroids back through time to a common point that was more than 6,000 years in the past (i.e., God would have created a fake impact).
Radiometric dating is common for rock samples, but we have tested samples from the moon and other extra-terrestrial rocks and the dates all agree. You really need to look into how radiometric data actually works. This isn’t simply one measurement without extensive cross-checks, validation protocols, etc. It is actually very reliable science.
With Trees,full fledged organisms, etc.the universe,stars, the solar system etc coming into existence in one moment. I guess all conditions for life must be available on earth.
And creation also in a mature state. I.e instead of seeds, full grown trees and forests are created. And life starts from that point.
This is possible as far as I can see.
Though some of the basic understanding of science would still have to be wrong like constant decay rates of radio isotopes.
And that’s the main challenge for YEC.
Yes I agree that the biggest problem for YEC is the speed of light and radiometric decay.
I have said this before also.
They would need the speed of light to not be constant. And same for decay rates.
No, science would not be able to determine the difference between a “mature” creation or a 14+ billion year old creation, but neither could anyone else.
If God created the world in a mature state, we’ve got lots of problems. There is no way to tell if God created the world in mature state 6,000 years ago or 1,000 years ago. Maybe Jesus wasn’t really the incarnate Son of God, didn’t really die on the cross, didn’t really raise from the dead. It only appeared that way. Once you go down that road, it’s kind of a mess.
We have got actual historical evidence. If you mean God created the world 1000 years ago with all documents in place … That’s a different story.
We might as well say, God created the world when I was born.
Given the sanctity of God’s revelation. I don’t see that as a problem.
Here you have to understand the distinction, which has been made several times here recently, between necessary and unnecessary appearance of age.
It’s the unnecesary appearance of age that requires deceptive intent. Created trees would not need to have rings. Conditions for life do not require layered sediments, fossils, paleosols, surface lava flows buried under miles of sediment, nested hiearchy of species genomes, etc.
More on the current topic, you wouldn’t see isotope concentrations in rocks consistent with a single age from different methods or with order of ages fitting stratigraphic sequences. Isochron dating wouldn’t work at all.
No, the point is that it’s the same story. Once you accept your idea of a “mature universe”, any creation date, including in between the last sentence in this post and this sentence, becomes equally plausible.
Are you suggesting the purpose of rings on trees is to show their age? If so, you would be correct.
layered sediments, fossils, paleosols, surface lava flows buried under miles of sediment, nested hiearchy of species genomes, etc.
This is a problem that needs to be explained. However no one has tried to explain these fearures taking a mature creation of God into consideration. What we have are inferences to the best explanation, provided miracles, acts of creation etc are not involved. Without a detailed study, how would you know that the same data does not tell a different story if you allow for the God. Many YECs seem to be convinced it does.
A lot of this “deception” is self imposed.
Yes… if you don’t believe in scripture.
There is no reason to assume a mature creation in the first place if it was not because of a particular interpretation of scripture.
That’s a totally different topic.
A particular interpretation of a scripture that never says anything about a “mature” creation (in the sense you’re talking about) or when any such mature creation would have actually been created. Again, since the Bible doesn’t say if or when the mature creation was created, it could have been last year and we wouldn’t know.
This has nothing to do with you stubbornly professing ignorance. Try google next time. Admit when you are are wrong instead of twisting it into an attack. None of this has any relevance to whether or not AIG is science or not.
Then you cap it off by suggesting that I am unfair to them? Or to you? Step back dude. You are way out of line.
Bible is clear that creation happened before Moses or Abraham was born… A minimum date for the point of creation is explicit in the bible.
It’s the actual time of creation which is not.
This is a wrong line of reasoning.
I agree there are issues with YEC interpretations of the bible.
No, I would not. It’s a side effect of their seasonal growth. They have no function or purpose. Their presence on a created, mature tree would be gratuitous and intentionally deceptive appearance of age.
Again, I don’t think you have thought enough about what “mature creation” means. The data would be compatible with a deceptive god, but you have claimed to rule that out. You need to back up some of this by declaring what a mature creation created without deception ought to look like, and why. YECs are easily convinced of anything that lets them believe. Others will take some kind of reaonable argument, which you seem unwilling to provide.